A Teachable Moment for Liberty

In the wake of Rachel Maddow’s interrogation of Rand Paul and his stance on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Young Americans for Liberty blogger Wesley Messamore posed a few choice questions for the MSNBC host: Would it be moral to force black restaurant owners to serve former Ku Klux Klansman, David Duke? If Fred Phelps, of “God Hates Fags” fame, walks into a gay bar, does he have the “right” to a Cosmopolitan? Considering that Phelps’s Westboro Baptist Church spends most of its time protesting military funerals, should this unpatriotic “preacher” be allowed to hoist red, white, and blue ribbon beer alongside Vietnam veterans at the local VFW, by force of law?

Maddow would probably consider these questions hypothetical, improbable, and irrelevant to the discussion at hand—just like her needling of Rand Paul about his support of the long -settled Civil Rights Act. Ironically, if Maddow were to admit that Duke or Phelps could or should be denied service, it would place her squarely in the libertarian camp–you know, along with Rand, the Klan, and the “racist” rest.

Though some liberals and even libertarians might disagree, there is a larger point being made than whether Paul or Maddow is correct in their particular debate. The most significant news is that finally—there will be actual debate.

The phony Left/Right divide represented by our two-party system hardly ever addresses any issues that have anything to do with what truly ails this country. To listen to Democrats, Bush wrecked the country and Obama’s wrecking machine is somehow fixing it, and too many Republicans seem to believe America has just now reached the point of collapse with the arrival of our current president, as if his predecessors had nothing to do with it. To follow the logic of the partisans who direct our national conversation, America’s problems aren’t systematic—but the result of the wrong party controlling the system. This is absurd.

Challenging our current, broken government necessarily means questioning sacred cows. With a $14 trillion dollar debt, should the federal government be in the retirement and healthcare business? Should the government be bailing out private industry and banks? Can the U.S. afford to continue policing the world? Democrats oppose Republicans’ micromanaging of such issues just as the GOP now opposes Obama’s tweaking of the status quo, but few venture outside conventional debate to question whether these should even be issues in the first place. With the rise of the Tea Partiers and widespread bipartisan disenchantment, American politics is changing and more substantive, root cause questions are beginning to be raised—and the establishment’s got nothing. Writes columnist Rich Lowry “When politics as usual is out of favor, expect some politics as unusual. That’s the newcomer Rand Paul, a stilted public performer with an unassailably anti-establishmentarian pedigree.”

Having a conversation about private property rights by addressing half-century old, segregation-ending, civil rights legislation is not a good way to make a national debut in a high profile campaign for U.S. Senate. Neither is talking about the Civil War and slavery a good way to begin a discussion of states’ rights, a conversation Ron Paul had with the late Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” in the midst of his 2008 presidential campaign. But this is what we’ve come to expect from the Pauls—professorial and often controversial questions about the very nature of American government.

Rand’s civil rights controversy has led some pundits to declare that that the Pauls’ brand of politics might be fine for the lecture hall but have no place in practical politics. Wrong—any politician at this late, economically unsustainable juncture, who is unwilling to bring up philosophical questions about what government can and cannot do, should or should not do, is not being practical. Writes Lowry: “If Kentucky Republicans had nominated Paul’s primary opponent, Trey Grayson, he certainly wouldn’t have been discussing the propriety of desegregating the Woolworth’s lunch counter by force of law the day after the election.” Lowry is right. Grayson would not be having a politically unwise and potentially damaging conversation about private property and civil rights—or a conversation about anything of substance, ever. It’s simply not in his DNA or that of most in his party.

The notion of the philosopher-statesman might be alien to the pundits and hacks who dominate today’s politics, but wasn’t unusual to the Founding Fathers, many of whom saw themselves in the same light. In our history, when the philosophy of Karl Marx has been implemented through legislation the Left always calls it “progress,” but if Ron or Rand Paul dare revisit the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson, we are told they are not ready for “prime time” and should retreat to the libertarian ghetto from which they came. But the exact opposite is true—we all know that the supposed grownups in charge know how to win elections and make modern politics function, but to what end, what good and what function? It is hard to imagine challenging a status quo that almost everyone agrees needs challenging, without first questioning the statist consensus on which it has been built. This is a task that will require philosophers, and thank God there exists at least two such statesman—a father and son—with the wisdom and will to carry out this crucial, and practical, democratic function.

The lead question in this is irrelevant. Being a Klansman (or a massive ass, like Fred Phelps) is behavior, not race. You can kick someone out of your business based on their behavior. Being black is not behavior. It is something you are born with.
You do understand that being born a minority and joining the klan are completely different? Right?
A black-owned restaurant would be in trouble for refusing to serve white people just as much as a white-restaurant would be in trouble for refusing to serve black people, but they can choose to refuse service to assholes.

Aaron, not so. If the “a–holes” disproportionately belong to members of a particular race, you will still be sued and ruined, on the grounds that your anti-a–hole policy is just veiled racism. Same for kicking accused shoplifters out of your store, as store owners in NYC discovered.

Sorry Aaron, but the distinction is not that clear cut. The bars against discrimination on the basis of religion are also long established and considered by the great majority sacrosanct. Religion is not an innate characteristic. I was not born a Catholic but baptised as one. Additionally many who have cheered the loudest for the civil rights revolution have for some time been seeking to extend it to those with disordered sexual orientations or gender confusion. They have done so with increasing success. Many of them, if not most, say that homosexuality is an innate characteristic. It may or may not be depending on the individual. I don’t know. If homosexual behaviour could be a innate characteristic why couldn’t bigoted beliefs. Once the principle of prohibiting discriminatory behaviour is accepted there is not rational end to it. As a practical matter it comes down to who has the influence to decide what is acceptable or even required discrimination and what isn’t.

Aaron, the point being made remains the same.
..and the lead questions are: “Would it be moral to force black restaurant owners to serve former Ku Klux Klansman, David Duke? If Fred Phelps, of “God Hates Fags” fame, walks into a gay bar, does he have the “right” to a Cosmopolitan? Considering that Phelps’s Westboro Baptist Church spends most of its time protesting military funerals, should this unpatriotic “preacher” be allowed to hoist red, white, and blue ribbon beer alongside Vietnam veterans at the local VFW, by force of law?”

YAL doesn’t claim Klansman are a race, but you can’t deny the fact that the underlying issue concerning Klansman and people of color is that one claims racial superiority. And here again, the private property argument remains relevant regardless of one’s opinion on racial issues.

In this context, the only argument I can see otherwise would be to claim that there is no right to be racist. Go ahead and apply this claim to the many other “ists” in the world and tell me this is practical.

You are refuted by three arguments, which are followed by some brief additional analysis of the political situation.

1/ a. Fred Phelps should not be banned from any gay bars.
b. If Fred Phelps brought signs to protest inside the gay bars, he could be removed.
c. If he carried a foghorn into a gay bar and start using it, he could be removed.

2/ a. The USFG gets to intervene in business practices because of Interstate Commerce.
b. Arguing that there should be NO regulation of private practices is not “practical,” only “ideological.”
c. As long as the world continues to grow MORE interconnected, there is MORE reason to think that people need to be protected from harmful business practices like discrimination; IF as GOVERNMENTS grow bigger, people lose power, then as BUSINESSES grow bigger, people lose power too.

3/ a. Philosophers discuss and resolve our metaphysical/moral/epistemological etc. questions.
b. Unless you REALLY want to argue that the market would correct for racist practices (an absurd argument given history) there is no reasonable way to reopen the debate.
c. Rand Paul is on the wrong side of history, and this question has been resolved already; being confused about this issue is not a sign of intelligence, but rather narrow-mindedness and dogmatism.

This is one of those questions you have to get right in order to be a politician. Let’s stop making excuses. Rand Paul showed that he is too radical to be elected to government (the very thing he hopes to have radically change) and actually be representing the majority of his constituents or work well with other congressmen to pass legislation. The Republican establishment needs to stop playing politics and excise the Tea Party members from the GOP instead of taking them into the fold just to win seats in the midterms. I would rather see the Republican Party lose a single election than see them support a candidate who thinks government in the abstract should not ban discrimination.

If you want to argue that individuals like Rand Paul have a role in our democracy, you are correct, but that role is one of the critic and the commentator. This is a valuable and important role, but it does not automatically qualify one to become an politician. Rand Paul should only become an elected official when there are actually a majority of constituents in a district or state that are Libertarian. And it should not be masquerading as a Republican just because he would never win an election running as a Libertarian or Tea Party candidate.

You started with a good idea but quickly diverged to more hateful speech against democrats. I am independent and I do see both parties becoming irrelevant and not facing our nation’s problems. BTW, when have you seen a gay person or individual of color entering a regular establishment announcing they hate heterosexuals or white people? Your examples do not work. But I have to admit to see you mentioning Thomas Jefferson was refreshing. I though that republicans wanted to delete him from the history books.

It’s amazing that you don’t even consider the possibility that Maddow would simply answer your hypothetical questions with the simple, direct answer of, “Yes, of course they should be served.” I think that says a lot about where you’re coming from.

Presenting the issue in a modestly different manner, no one, including the government, has the legitimate “right” to use violence to prohibit the association of individuals or to force individuals to associate.

I half agree with “Confused” – but I think he’s missing a rather large point; that racism (via slavery) was institutionalized by government force – not by the market – so Rand isn’t entirely on the “wrong side of history”, as he states.

I agree that there are some issues with the notion that the market will correct racist behavior – because it depends on what the prevailing notions regarding race happen to be in society during a given point in time. If the majority of people are racist against blacks, then it’s wrong to say that the market (IE: an aggregate reflection of people via their behavior through consumption) will correct that behavior.

I consider myself a libertarian – but I’m not a purist, which is why I diverge from many of my friends on this particular issue. I think it’s wrong of people like Maddow to paint individuals like Rand, who happen to disagree with her as racist – because from a philosophical libertarian perspective, that’s not the point at issue; the focus is private versus public property rights, and the rights / responsibilities of individual business owners. However, I think it’s reasonable to say that another libertarian way of looking at the situation is the protection of those individuals who are being discriminated against for an arbitrary reason; race.

I do agree with the concerns that Tom lays out above. Perhaps some a-holes might be disproportionately part of one race or another – and a business owner might be wrongfully penalized if that’s the case. Any well-meaning legislation can obviously be used toward negative ends, but you have to balance the overall impact.

It’s a difficult issue with many layers. I just hope that we can have civilized debates rooted in reality about the matter without one side arbitrarly labeling the other racist; which is what Maddow and her ilk do. A position I find exceptionally disingenuous is the one that asserts that all white southeners are just closest racists, and the only thing preventing them from breaking out the KKK garbs and hitting the streets is the benign hand of government. In my opinion, that pro-government view is just as philosophically out-of-touch in it’s notions as the purist libertarian idea that fights against the notion sometimes reasonable government action is needed to protect the rights of people who were in fact being discriminated against.

I think it is a fair article, and certainly there are good arguments to be made on either side of whether or not the provision of the civil rights amendment barring private institutions from discriminating based on race is good and appropriate governance. It does seem though that most of the media wants to focus on the this issue, rather the issues which are the cornerstone of Dr. Paul campaign. Can we now not address the issues of sound money, a non interventionist foreign policy, and the restoration of civil liberties? It sounds to me like many in the media would rather simply call Dr. Paul a racist than to confront the more relevant controversial and relevant issues that Dr. Paul has raised throughout his campaign.

Aaron, racial prejudice or the desire to interact exclusively with people of one’s own race did not develop in the world as a function of intolerance toward others with a different skin color, as your statement would seem to imply. In other words, negative attitudes regarding people of other races is not generally caused by a superficial difference such as pigmentation, a genetic trait, but rather by behaviors commonly demonstrated by racial and ethnic groups. And that includes whites. It is for this reason that I don’t find the questions posed above, which you correctly pointed out are linked to behavior, to be as irrelevant as you find them to be.

John, there are no good arguments for government to dictate to whom you can serve, sell your house to, employ.
The public accomodations, equal employment and fair housing laws should all be repealed as total violations of individual property rights. They are the flip side of Jim Crow laws and legal slavery. This is as important an issue as any other and it’s long overdue for revision of the perceived wisdom.
Confused, you really are aptly named. It’s the market that has opened up race relations in the US. The state’s only impact was negative, trying to use coercion in place of persuasion
and reason. Unless business has a state connection as in fascism, not laissez-faire capitalism, there is no coercion.
David Conrad, Maddow’s answer as you put it totally indicts her as a violator of individual rights, in a free society such a person would be regarded as a criminal. I think your likely reiteration of Maddow’s horrible views says a lot about you.
I disagree with Mr. Hunter on Rand Paul. I totally admire Ron
but not at all Rand.

I agree with the main ideas of the article and I had no idea that so many Liberals like to read American Conservative articles…that’s cool. I will read the NYT and The Republic from time to time when an article headline grabs my attention.

In regard to Dr. Rand Paul of Kentucky…he is a great candidate on so many levels. I love that there is a candidate that has gotten under the skin of the media and the establishment (status quo). Most of the other races around the nation are being ignored or eclipsed by stories about anything Rand Paul does, says, or eats…ha, ha.

Here’s a guy who came out of nowhere in a political sense and has stirred up a hornets nest of controversy simply because he isn’t the typical, boring, cookie-cutter politician that does what he’s supposed to (on cue).

I met his father Rep. Ron Paul a few times and found him to definitely be the philosopher-statesman type. Ron Paul should be recognized as one of the most honest and hard-working citizen-statesmen of our time…I was wondering when I watched the media coverage about the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy and how the media glorified a politician who represented everything that is wrong with our federal government, and how the very few good guys are completely ignored.

So, Rand Paul is exciting to someone like me that is generally cynical about national politics – I love that he drives Liberals and Conservatives and Republicans and Democrats and the Corporate-Controlled Mass Media CRAZY. I had no doubt that he would win the May 18th Primary and I have no doubt that he will win on November 2nd. We need somebody to shake up the status quo and Rand Paul is the man for the job.

And don’t think that I only like him b/c he’s Libertarian or supported by the Tea Party…I really do hope that there are some upsets in the Democrat races too…just changing one out of the two establishment parties will not accomplish that much…

Clearly the distinction is between those from Left and Right that believe in the progressive idea that the collective through government force has the right and responsibility to control individuals and force them to accept the will, views and behaviour of the majority.
Libertarians do not accept such authority of the collective over the free actions and beliefs of the idividual and most of the Founders of America believed that also. Freedom can somtimes be ugly and stupid but people have a right to be ugly and stupid it’s bound up with the natural right to freedom as long as they do not violate the person or property of another. The voluntary interaction between free individuals on as decentralized and free level as possible is the best form of society, this society will not be a progressive distopia and will have a fair share of ugly and stupid behaviour, it’s called human nature and the fall from grace, it is vastly superior to Big Brother’s Brave New World where we will all be forced to serve the ugly and stupid.

This article is critical of hypocrisies of both the left and the right. It is a shame that you can see only criticism of the right as good and all criticism of the left as:

“right wing spew, demonizing the left with lies and exaggerations … not trying to actually make a contribution to greater good.”

I suspect you have a typical leftist mentality. The belief that because you see yourself and humanity as a general good, that no entity given authoritarian power over the rights of you and all your countrymen could ever do naught but “good” for the whole of you. That your rulers might define YOU as outside the greater good for their own selfish interests, rendering you an enemy of the state and of the people, never crosses your mind.

You have forgotten the lessons of history that thousands of years of slavery have taught humankind – and for what? A few paltry years of good leisure. A quick historical read of the old testament, for instance, might show you Leftists that various groups of humans (Jews and Israelites in the case of the OT) were lead out of slavery by God or fate or whatever you call it. Why are you so eager to clap yourself back into irons when ne’er in history has a promise of security for voluntary surrender of your liberty ever lead to any “greater good”?

The Left celebrates the “liberation” of Chinese women under Mao as if that justifies the murder of 80 million people his regime was responsible for. The 60 million murdered under Stalin are easy to wave away with your ‘greater good’ banter as well. With this line of thought I’m surprised you even manage to drudge up sympathy for the 6 million murdered by Hitler. At least you can have sympathy for the suffering and death of some – tho it seems only the suffering of some garners any sympathy from Leftists. In contrast, Rand or Ron Paul universally denounce any and all government oppression, tyranny and mass murder. The same oppression, tyranny and mass murder Leftists wholeheartedly support – under their self-delusions of greater good – a term without a meaning anymore. How quaint.

“Clearly the distinction is between those from Left and Right that believe in the progressive idea that the collective through government force has the right and responsibility to control individuals and force them to accept the will, views and behaviour of the majority.”

Very nicely said Don.

“Freedom can sometimes be ugly and stupid but … a right to be ugly and stupid [is] bound up with the natural right to freedom as long as they do not violate the person or property of another.”

Let’s not forget the ugliness and stupidness of the majority and its’ government when forcing the minority to accept its will and morality. Can the ugliness of a few ‘free’ modern day Neo-Nazis espousing anti-semitism even compare with the ugliness of the Nazi party and its decrees of ethnic cleansing? I think not.

Yet the argument that the government must be used to quell the freedom of the Neo Nazis is more than a couple steps along the road to the Nazi State.

“IF as GOVERNMENTS grow bigger, people lose power, then as BUSINESSES grow bigger, people lose power too.”

I think this is the fundamental mistake of Statists. In a limited government such as the one created by the US Constitution, business – by itself – cannot legally use force to coerce anyone to do anything. Ever. If it does, its principals have committed a crime and are subject to criminal action. Therefore, individual power lost from bigger business is in no way comparable to individual power lost from bigger government. Big government can LEGALLY take away your freedom and your life. We truly need some proper perspective in the magnitude of the potential offenses against the public here.

Moreover, if government actors do break the law and harm a person, you know have a conflict of interest in the justice system. To believe that the government will properly punish itself for injustices committed by itself is not consistent with history. The greatest tragedies are committed by the governments/government actors whose subjects have few effective safeguards against.

Here’s a newsflash, it’s our fault slavery and discrimination didn’t end, not government, not the markets, it was us. We chose to support these things intentionally, unintentionally, without knowledge, without question, and couldn’t of cared less until caring made us look good or put extracurricular activities on our resume or college application.

We could stop a lot of business ethics problems by just saying no to the businesses that practice such atrocities.